Understanding the importance of sustainable ecological innovation in reducing carbon emissions: investigating the green energy demand, financial development, natural resource management, industrialisation and urbanisation channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanity is in more danger from escalating greenhouse gas (G.H.G.) emissions, making the world warmer. The study examined the relationship between China’s environmental technologies, ecological innovation, and carbon emissions using time-series data from 1975 to 2020. The N.A.R.D.L. approach is used to examine the cointegration of variables in the short and long run. In the short run, environmental technologies, industrialisation (I.N.D.), positive shocks to natural resource depletion (N.R.D.), negative shocks to renewable energy (R.E.) use, and technical advancements affect carbon emissions. On the other hand, positive shocks to environmental technologies and financial development (F.D.), negative shocks to N.R.D., R.E. consumption (E.C.), and technical innovation all have a long-term effect on carbon emissions. Granger causality was used to examine the causal link between variables. According to the findings, environmental technologies, F.D., technical innovation, N.R.D., and economic growth (E.G.) cause carbon emissions. The impulse response function revealed an inverse link between asymmetric environmental technology and carbon emissions. In contrast, F.D. and N.R.D. directly affect environmental degradation over time. The outcome of the variance decomposition revealed that negative shocks of F.D. would likely exert greater pressure on achieving sustainable environmental agenda. Investment in environmental technology, F.D., technological innovation and R.E. should be encouraged by the Chinese government to achieve sustainable prosperity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".